TY - JOUR
T1 - Risky choice frames shift the structure and emotional valence of internal arguments
T2 - A query theory account of the unusual disease problem
AU - Wall, Daniel
AU - Crookes, Raymond D.
AU - Johnson, Eric J.
AU - Weber, Elke U.
N1 - Funding Information:
Work supported by the US National Science Foundation through grant number 153104. We thank participants in the Preferences as Memories Lab meetings at Columbia University and Nathaniel Posner for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. A portion of this paper was presented as “Whether You Are Framed Depends On How You Ask (Yourself): Query Theory and the Asian Disease Problem” at the 2014 Society for Judgment and Decision Making Conference in Long Beach, California. Data and analysis files for all studies are at: https://osf.io/5frzx/ Copyright: © 2020. The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. ∗Carnegie Mellon University. Email: dwall@andrew.cmu.edu. https:// orcid.org/0000-0001-6897-3077. †Columbia University. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2420-7578. ‡Columbia University. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7797-8347. §Princeton University. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1678-3631.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Society for Judgment and Decision making. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - We examine a Query Theory account of risky choice framing effects — when risky choices are framed as a gain, people are generally risky averse but, when an equivalent choice is framed as a loss, people are risk seeking. Consistent with Query Theory, frames affected the structure of participants’ arguments: gain frame participants listed arguments favoring the certain option earlier and more often than loss frame participants. These argumentative shifts mediated framing effects; manipulating participants initial arguments attenuated them. While emotions, as measured by PANAS, were related to frames but not related to choices, an exploratory text analysis of the affective valence of arguments was related to both. Compared to loss-frame participants, gain-frame participants expressed more positive sentiment towards the certain option than the risky option. This relative-sentiment index predicted choices by itself but not when included with structure of arguments. Further, manipulated initial arguments did not significantly affect participant’s relative sentiment. Prior to changing choices, risky choice frames alter both the structure and emotional valence of participants’ internal arguments.
AB - We examine a Query Theory account of risky choice framing effects — when risky choices are framed as a gain, people are generally risky averse but, when an equivalent choice is framed as a loss, people are risk seeking. Consistent with Query Theory, frames affected the structure of participants’ arguments: gain frame participants listed arguments favoring the certain option earlier and more often than loss frame participants. These argumentative shifts mediated framing effects; manipulating participants initial arguments attenuated them. While emotions, as measured by PANAS, were related to frames but not related to choices, an exploratory text analysis of the affective valence of arguments was related to both. Compared to loss-frame participants, gain-frame participants expressed more positive sentiment towards the certain option than the risky option. This relative-sentiment index predicted choices by itself but not when included with structure of arguments. Further, manipulated initial arguments did not significantly affect participant’s relative sentiment. Prior to changing choices, risky choice frames alter both the structure and emotional valence of participants’ internal arguments.
KW - Choice processing
KW - Query theory
KW - Risky choice framing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091764313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091764313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85091764313
SN - 1930-2975
VL - 15
SP - 685
EP - 703
JO - Judgment and Decision Making
JF - Judgment and Decision Making
IS - 5
ER -